If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I appreciate Michael's work

Michael, I want to let you know that I appreciate you publishing this article, which indeed was informative. Please don't be discouraged by the usual trolls who show up to attack you. Sad to say that the Internet enables these losers to anonymously heap abuse on people like you who actually create useful content for us geeks to read. What the trolls are really saying is that, "Hey, look at me, I'm a know-nothing loser, I can't write anything useful but I can make myself look cool by attacking those who are actually productive."

As for the article itself, I had been wondering what was happening with Gnash. Sad to see it stagnating, but glad to hear that Lightspark has picked up the baton. Much as we might all wish Flash to disappear from the Internet, that won't happen for at least a few more years, so it would be nice to have a fully-functional free tool that doesn't make us dependent on Adobe (which recently announced that they will no longer update Flash for Linux).

I think you should get a special reward just for mentioning the Atari Falcon.

Actually I talked (emailed) with RMS now, and maybe I did adopt too much sympathy for the FSF label.
Some of these people involved in opensource seems to have some obscure ideas. While I do think the GPL is the most open source, and supporting only open source, and not opensource becoming closed source, and branchobscurities (BSD/MIT), RMS insisted on opensource being a "different concept" and that I should use the term "free software". I thought that maybe he has thought more on this than me, so I entertained the idea for a week or so, trying to replace the word opensource with free software. The first thing I noticed was, the confusion with "free". So I had to add the slogan "free as in speech, not as in beer". I don`t even like beer, and having to mention it, is not my favorite pasttime. Still I thought, he knows more about this than me. I tried.. and tried.. and in the end had to refuse the whole thing, and go back to using the word open source. It is just a word. It expresses an idea, and the GPL supports that idea. I did then realize that maybe people react on FSF because of some of these obscurities, and I am a big believer in natural human response.

...RMS insisted on opensource being a "different concept" and that I should use the term "free software".

He's right, as long as you're happy to argue semantics. However, when it comes to things like licences semantics are everything, so you have to give the guy some slack. Libre (free as in freedom) software is always open source, but open source software is not necessarily libre. "Open source" is a looser term that at face value could simply mean that you can see the source code.

He's right, as long as you're happy to argue semantics. However, when it comes to things like licences semantics are everything, so you have to give the guy some slack. Libre (free as in freedom) software is always open source, but open source software is not necessarily libre. "Open source" is a looser term that at face value could simply mean that you can see the source code.

d00d, if this thing with "freedom" was so important, why not "freedom software", and not "free/libre" (free as in speech, NOT OPEN SOURCE, that offends us etc.) Don`t you understand that this becomes too obscure? Open source is very popular now, and we have near-professional distributions like Ubuntu. You know without the geeky referances to girls (retarded whores are good for geeks/intelligent men/engineers style wallpapers, which about everyone who has ever tried that knows that is wrong) or the hippie who insists on raggamuffin in his errormessages. YOU GOTS DA ERROR, NOW LOOK AT THIS NOOD WOM4N.

Opensource is opensource though, but the point is, if you want to reach a professional audience, and people in general, you have to drop silly attitudes, and make something that decent conservative people can use. And that goes for all the unnescesary statements with "free software" also. The term opensource to me and many more obviously mean what is intended, and the rest is superfluous, and hinders from being respected and socially accepted. Stuff like these plague a bit opensource, and yeah, if it wants to go from obscurity to generality, it must do so in it`s philosophy and people too.

d00d, if this thing with "freedom" was so important, why not "freedom software", and not "free/libre" (free as in speech, NOT OPEN SOURCE, that offends us etc.) Don`t you understand that this becomes too obscure?

That's semantics for you. The differences are often obscure. I assume there's a reason why he doesn't refer to it as "freedom software", but I haven't asked him. Since you have been in contact with him already, maybe you could ask him yourself.

Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated

Opensource is opensource though, but the point is, if you want to reach a professional audience, and people in general, you have to drop silly attitudes, and make something that decent conservative people can use.

The FSF is an advocacy/activist group for libre software. If they make compromises it weakens their position (regardless of whether or not you think it's weak already). Do you know why Stallman hasn't yet faded into history, but still draws crowds to listen to his keynotes and still pops up in the news? Do you know why we are talking about him right now? Because he doesn't compromise no matter how cooky people think he is. He doesn't just talk the talk like a politician. He's not interested in the commercial success of free software as an end, only as a means to its wider use. He isn't going to sell out on his views just to get a few businesses to install Emacs. Whether you or I agree with him is irrelevant, his views are his views.

:)

I actually got in contact with him, because I wanted to further popularize the message of opensource. And contacted him to ask about using his voice in a techno track. Now he started this idolaterous preaching on "free software". But as I said, I thought maybe he had spent some time thinking about it. But no, it is not something I find to be related to natural human conduct. To make exceptions for, and obscure my language, and make things absurd, in relation to how simple it can be, is completely unacceptable. I did actually put forth the idea of "freedom software". Atleast then you don`t have to always make statemets about "free/libre beer" etc.

Now not only was that obscure, but I asked for a non-noisy recording of his voice, because really, if you are going to do something that gains some level of popularity, it needs to be good. But he sendt me a link to a recording of less-than-mobile quality voice. Which is worse than most youtube recordings, and I even asked for one better than most youtube recordings, because they are useless aswell, unless you are going to direct yourself to a very small audience.

About Stallmann not comprimising, imagine how MUCH MORE people would talk about him, if he didn`t try to impose odd rules on people, that has no basis in reality (as I experience it anyway), and reduce his audience to people who can stand odd rules. And even then I don`t think most people are aware of that. Which is good That is a mercy from God I think.

I don`t think if we agree or not is irrelevant, why should it be?

Infact most of us live in a democracy. That means WE run the country. We vote in the politicians we want. And you say he doesn`t talk about politics, but he does, and I also know many linux-users say they don`t talk about politics or religion. But sweeping stuff under the mat, and trying to pretend it doesn`t exist, is not going to solve anything. You have to try and get into the problem, make up your mind, apply your intelligence, and excellence to politics and religion, just as you would do to code.

Ultimately I hope you will find a human-centric view, like that expressed in the Quran 30:30.

Infact not doing so, is to sell-out. That is to be an opinion-prostitute, who cannot voice his opinion, due to the fact that it does not fit commercial agendas.

And what would you say if you had "libre/beer" speech in the goverment? Do you see it fails because of obscurity?

I did actually put forth the idea of "freedom software". Atleast then you don`t have to always make statemets about "free/libre beer" etc.

What did he say about this specifically? I am interested to know.

Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated

About Stallmann not comprimising, imagine how MUCH MORE people would talk about him, if he didn`t try to impose odd rules on people, that has no basis in reality (as I experience it anyway), and reduce his audience to people who can stand odd rules. And even then I don`t think most people are aware of that. Which is good That is a mercy from God I think.

I don't think we'd talk about him much at all. He would just be another hypocrite that says one thing but does another. People without conviction are only tolerated for so long. That is why political parties get voted in and out regularly: they tell you what you want to hear to get your vote and then do precisely what they said they wouldn't months later.

Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated

I don`t think if we agree or not is irrelevant, why should it be?

You may have misunderstood what I meant. Our opinion is irrelevant in that it won't change his opinion. No matter what we think of him he is going to continue sharing his views until he's on his death bed. I think you'd agree with me there.

Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated

And you say he doesn`t talk about politics, but he does

Well, no, I didn't say that actually. I just said that he doesn't talk like a politician. I know full well that he does talk about politics. In fact he probably talks more about politics than free software, as strange as that may seem.

Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated

And what would you say if you had "libre/beer" speech in the goverment? Do you see it fails because of obscurity?

Governments talk too much as it is, why would I want them to have even more free speech?